Share this story

An article in German photovoltaics magazine Photon last month has shed light on the dramatic effect that photovoltaics technology had on reducing the price of electricity over the last four years. But as the German solar juggernaut rolls on, domestic manufacturers are struggling. Some have blamed relentless cuts to feed-in tariffs—branding it as a backlash against the solar industry. What on earth is going?

PV's effect on the price of energy

Photon compared two graphs obtained from the European Power Exchange (EPEX) website, which publishes hourly electrical energy spot prices from the French, German/Austrian, and Swiss markets dating back to 2005. The two graphs compared show German prices for Wednesday, March 7, 2012 and Wednesday, March 12, 2008.

Hourly German electricity prices, March 12, 2008

EPEX

Though both graphs demonstrate a sharp rise in the price of electricity at about 7am and a drop-off after about 11pm, there is a stark difference in the price profiles during daylight hours. On March 12, 2008, prices maintained a high plateau throughout the day, peaking at just over 60 €/MWh at noon, but never falling below 50 €/MWh between 8am and 11pm.

Hourly German electricity prices, March 7, 2012

EPEX

In contrast, the data from March 7, 2012 shows two distinct peaks, at 9am and 7pm, but between these times there is a significant drop in the price of electricity, floating between 35 and 40 €/MWh between noon and 5pm. The twin-peaked feature of the graph is evident for all working week days during March 2012, though in some cases the morning peak appears to be much less pronounced than that of the evening.

The interpretation seized on by Photon (and subsequently restated in English by Renewables International Magazine) is that this dip in daytime electricity price is entirely thanks to Germany's photovoltaics infrastructure. That has rocketed from an installed capacity of 6GW in 2008 to 25GW in 2011—amounting to half the world's installed solar power, with 7.5GW installed in that year alone. Renewables International estimates that a further 2GW may have been installed already this year.

It makes intuitive sense that solar power would make electricity prices more competitive during daylight hours, but what's striking is the scale of the effect. As veteran business and environment journalist Giles Parkinson put it at Renew Economy, "solar PV is not just licking the cream off the profits of the fossil fuel generators—it is in fact eating their entire cake."

Parkinson explains the impact of solar upon German energy markets with respect to the merit order, which prioritizes—based on marginal cost—which sources of energy are utilized in the face of increasing live demand. By this metric, renewable energy sources like wind and solar power are extremely competitive because there is no fuel cost to factor in. Their marginal cost is zero.

A recent study by the Institute for Future Energy Systems (IZES) in Germany (conducted, it should be noted, on behalf of the German Solar Industry Association BSW-Solar) found that the effect of photovoltaics is a 40 percent reduction in midday electricity prices, with a mean 10 percent reduction overall. Interestingly, energy prices in the middle of the night have nearly doubled since 2008, which Renewables International attributes to power companies seeking to recoup the profits which they can no longer amass during daytime peak consumption.

Solar backlash?

A slashing of feed-in tariffs in Germany threatens to become a pan-European trend which some have interpreted as a backlash from utility companies against the threat posed by renewable energy sources. Feed-in tariffs are the rates paid to producers of renewable energy (who historically have often been home- and small business-owners) for the surplus renewable energy they can feed back into a national energy grid. With the added security of long-term contracts, feed-in tariffs were effectively a means to encourage the uptake of renewable energy technology. Photovoltaics have been a particularly popular choice among homes and small businesses with rooftops doing nothing but keeping the rain out. Were being the operative word.

As of 2011, 20 percent of Germany's electricity came from renewable sources, and 70 percent of that was supported by feed-in tariffs. But the prices paid for a kilowatt-hour of photovoltaic-derived energy under such schemes has fallen year-on-year. In Germany, for rooftop photovoltaic installations under 30kW, 57.4€-ct/kWh was the going rate in 2004, falling to 24.43€-ct/kWh by the first quarter of 2012. Rates for larger installations and ground-mounted installations chart similar declines over the same period—the rates being ostensibly lowered as an incentive to promote the efficiency of PV technology.

That was the case until April 1 anyway, when a new rate of 19.5€-ct/kWh was imposed upon rooftop installations up to 10kW in size. Less generous tariffs force owners and installers of photovoltaic equipment to be much more selective about their purchasing decisions. The result has been something of a shakeout of the solar industry, with disastrous consequences for Germany's manufacturers. Many are struggling to stay afloat, or are sinking altogether.

Green Tech Media has been keeping a close eye on what it has described as the "death rattle" of the German solar manufacturing industry, reporting on the "failures" of Solar Millennium and Solon last December, and Odersun's bankruptcy last week. Earlier this week Q-Cells filed for insolvency and Phoenix Solar announced a restructuring since the latest tariff cut this week. Q-Cells was once the globe's largest solar manufacturer.

And yet Germany's solar expansion continues apace. To achieve its aim of 52GW of installed PV capacity by 2020 it only needs to install 3GW per year—about half the rate at which it's currently trundling along. Clearly German solar expansion is looking beyond domestic suppliers to provide cheap, efficient equipment—in many cases to China and the US, where manufacturers have more nimbly adapted to efficiency-boosting and price-cutting advances.

It's likely that feed-in tariffs will be abolished outright long before 2020, and the consensus in the German solar industry appears to be that this will make very little difference to progress. As photovoltaic power fast approaches grid parity—i.e. a cost level with that of purchasing from the grid—the idea of financial incentives for solar installations appears increasingly redundant. If the cutting of feed-in tariffs is a strategy to undermine the march of photovoltaic solar power (as has been theorized), it doesn't seem to be working. Rather, the effect seems to be that, by making installers more cost-conscious, the least competitive manufacturers are weeded out. If the upshot of reducing feed-in tariffs is to keep the solar industry honest, how bad is that, really?

If the installed cost of PV is dropping so much, why isn't PV exploding in other countries around the world?

Because it's still expensive to prepay for (some of) your power needs without some sort of guaranteed buy-back rate or other subsidy. Should I spend $10,000 and save $100/mo (still a generous payback of 8 years) or just spend $100/mo and keep my $9900 invested elsewhere?

That said, I rode through a bit of southern Germany last fall, and the amount of solar installed was amazing.

Germany played this perfectly IMO. They took a market that would not have developed this soon or quickly on its own and kickstarted initial demand with feed-in tariffs. With more money to be made, more companies began producing solar cells and the competition drove prices down. With historically low prices now making unsubsidized installations competitive, the government can scale back and ultimately eliminate the tariffs. Now you have a mature, fully-functioning market created by private entrepreneurs, made possible by the government, and which benefits the entire population. INVESTMENT. It's amazing what you can accomplish when anti-government zealots don't compose a quarter of your population.

If the installed cost of PV is dropping so much, why isn't PV exploding in other countries around the world?

Because German feed-in tarriffs are higher than market value for the electricity. The higher cost is passed along to all consumers in their electric bills. I've seen an estimate of something like 3% of an average household's utility bill in Germany represents renewable subsidies.

Also, IIRC, those tarriffs are guaranteed for a period of time (like 20 years or something). So those new tarriffs are for new installations. Existing installations continue to receive the tarriff in effect at the time of installation.

I don't see why they bother. Sure, 25 GW is an impressive number, but it's more like an effective average 2 GW when taking capacity factor into account. Despite the impressive numbers, it's only 2-3% of electricity contribution and even less of total energy.

I don't see why they bother. Sure, 25 GW is an impressive number, but it's more like an effective average 2 GW when taking capacity factor into account. Despite the impressive numbers, it's only 2-3% of electricity contribution and even less of total energy.

In 25 years when oil, gas and coal are too expensive, Germany will be ready.

I don't see why they bother. Sure, 25 GW is an impressive number, but it's more like an effective average 2 GW when taking capacity factor into account. Despite the impressive numbers, it's only 2-3% of electricity contribution and even less of total energy.

In 25 years when oil, gas and coal are too expensive, Germany will be ready.

It is called "thinking ahead".

Ready for what? At the current pace, they'll be at like 10% of electricity production in those 25 years. Big whoop. That's noise. Completely irrelevant. And in the meantime, they will be closing their nuclear plants, which supply 20% of electricity (mind you, whilst having the same installed capacity as PV). So they would be taking one step forwards and two steps back.

And while Germany might succeed at curbing its energy use, globally the use of energy and fossil fuels is just going to rise by significant amounts. Humanity is fucked and this feel-good nonsense is not going to change anything about that.

Humanity is fucked and this feel-good nonsense is not going to change anything about that.

You're an over the top pessimest. If you really believe it then go live in the woods or join the Amish. Get your practice in now. Your other choice is obviously suicide.

There's enough known uranium deposits in the world that we can build fission power reactors (breeders, not the wasteful use-once type) for the next 300 years, including projected expansion. No matter how much people some people whine now about nuclear power, they'll get drowned out when the choice becomes nuclear or nothing.

Even if all the coal and oil evaporate, we can maintain a tech civilization. But it'll be without you since you'll be living in the forest waiting for the collapse of civilization.

I don't see why they bother. Sure, 25 GW is an impressive number, but it's more like an effective average 2 GW when taking capacity factor into account. Despite the impressive numbers, it's only 2-3% of electricity contribution and even less of total energy.

In 25 years when oil, gas and coal are too expensive, Germany will be ready.

It is called "thinking ahead".

Maybe. On the other hand, opportunity cost can be huge in rapidly evolving markets.

Imagine having spent all of your money for computers for the next 20 years - in 1994.

Well, solar power's been crazily subsidized here. So crazily, that in fact the prices for panels didn't decline despite rapidly shrinking manufacturing costs. People still bought them, because they made a profit in the end and the costs for that get distributed to all consumers with a renewable energy tax on power.

The real interesting parts with the last changes imo aren't the dramatically lowered prices for selling your energy, though. If you have a small solar installation, you now only get the money for 80% of the power you feed in and how those 80% are going to be determined exactly is anything but clear.

The by far best part now is, though, that because the power grid we have is not able to handle all those decentralized small producers, that you either have to install hardware that allows for remote limitation of your feed-in rates or live with an outright cut of feed in power.Of course the necessary hardware can currently not be bought on the free market, but in practice only from the same companies running the power grid and it is anything but inexpensive.

You see, we also get lobby made legislation and I'm not sure if it's not worse than in the US even

Humanity is fucked and this feel-good nonsense is not going to change anything about that.

You're an over the top pessimest. If you really believe it then go live in the woods or join the Amish. Get your practice in now. Your other choice is obviously suicide.

There's enough known uranium deposits in the world that we can build fission power reactors (breeders, not the wasteful use-once type) for the next 300 years, including projected expansion. No matter how much people some people whine now about nuclear power, they'll get drowned out when the choice becomes nuclear or nothing.

Even if all the coal and oil evaporate, we can maintain a tech civilization. But it'll be without you since you'll be living in the forest waiting for the collapse of civilization.

I'm not a Luddite. The opposite in fact, only technology can save us now. But I am pessimistic.

I'm pessimistic because no real steps are being made to improve our situation. Even worse: our emissions are just rising. It's just getting worse. They shouldn't be rising! They should be falling by now. And they are projected to keep rising for decades more.

And I am a big proponent of new nuclear, but I'm realistic enough to say that it's not going to be deployed fast enough to make a huge difference. We should have been putting billions into breeder tech every year for decades, we should have had factory built reactors by now, deploying GWs of them every week, instead we're still mess around with LWRs. Which are better than nothing, I guess but it's not going to make a difference. We need new nuclear tech that can not only compete with coal, but can flat out destroy it in terms of power density and economics. I believe it's possible, but also that we're late to the game. And quite frankly, I blame the anti-nuke movement for that. You're welcome, asshats.

Well, solar power's been crazily subsidized here. So crazily, that in fact the prices for panels didn't decline despite rapidly shrinking manufacturing costs. People still bought them, because they made a profit in the end and the costs for that get distributed to all consumers with a renewable energy tax on power.

The real interesting parts with the last changes imo aren't the dramatically lowered prices for selling your energy, though. If you have a small solar installation, you now only get the money for 80% of the power you feed in and how those 80% are going to be determined exactly is anything but clear.

The by far best part now is, though, that because the power grid we have is not able to handle all those decentralized small producers, that you either have to install hardware that allows for remote limitation of your feed-in rates or live with an outright cut of feed in power.Of course the necessary hardware can currently not be bought on the free market, but in practice only from the same companies running the power grid and it is anything but inexpensive.

You see, we also get lobby made legislation and I'm not sure if it's not worse than in the US even

I think the article misattributes some things. The German government isn't necessarily listening to utility complaints when they cut feed-in tariffs. As evidenced in the last paragraph, the government has a very long-term plan for the rate of energy generation converted to solar power. Solar costs have dropped at a much faster rate than originally expected, so the government has cut subsidies to slow the rate of solar adoption (and thus the amount of money spent on subsidies).

What's fascinating is that the cutting of subsidies have been offset by continuing drops in solar panel costs.

The other important thing to remember is that the "cost" of solar panels is calculated based on an expected lifetime of service which is actually much lower than normal operational periods. Another way to think of it is that when solar panels are installed the marginal cost of electricity is *zero*- it's free. The cost of electricity you see in Germany during the day is the cost of free solar power and costly fossil fuel power averaged together.

As more and more people install solar panels, the number of fossil fuel plants required will drop in order to keep prices high enough. It's a very effective strategy for winding down fossil fuel reliance.

It's a simple cost/benefit analysis. If the payback period is within the timeframe that you're expecting, and everything after that is gravy, the capitalization will have been worth it.

Well, yes, if your goal is breaking even. Then all you care about is whether the benefits are adequate. However, most people prefer to maximize return on investment, and then you need to know whether the benefits are optimal. A simple cost/benefit analysis doesn't tell you this.

However, most people prefer to maximize return on investment, and then you need to know whether the benefits are optimal.

If you want to maximize investment, then you obviously take on higher risk. Meanwhile, electricity still needs to be generated, oil reserves get more expensive to exploit over time, material costs fluctuate, housing prices rise and collapse, wars break out...

Add enough conditions to anything and nothing will ever get done.

All the while, the sun keeps shining. I myself installed solar, and expect payback in 2018 at current electricity rates. I'm curious what you would have done as an alternative.

Well, solar power's been crazily subsidized here. So crazily, that in fact the prices for panels didn't decline despite rapidly shrinking manufacturing costs. People still bought them, because they made a profit in the end and the costs for that get distributed to all consumers with a renewable energy tax on power.

The real interesting parts with the last changes imo aren't the dramatically lowered prices for selling your energy, though. If you have a small solar installation, you now only get the money for 80% of the power you feed in and how those 80% are going to be determined exactly is anything but clear.

The by far best part now is, though, that because the power grid we have is not able to handle all those decentralized small producers, that you either have to install hardware that allows for remote limitation of your feed-in rates or live with an outright cut of feed in power.Of course the necessary hardware can currently not be bought on the free market, but in practice only from the same companies running the power grid and it is anything but inexpensive.

You see, we also get lobby made legislation and I'm not sure if it's not worse than in the US even

I think the article misattributes some things. The German government isn't necessarily listening to utility complaints when they cut feed-in tariffs. As evidenced in the last paragraph, the government has a very long-term plan for the rate of energy generation converted to solar power. Solar costs have dropped at a much faster rate than originally expected, so the government has cut subsidies to slow the rate of solar adoption (and thus the amount of money spent on subsidies).

What's fascinating is that the cutting of subsidies have been offset by continuing drops in solar panel costs.

The other important thing to remember is that the "cost" of solar panels is calculated based on an expected lifetime of service which is actually much lower than normal operational periods. Another way to think of it is that when solar panels are installed the marginal cost of electricity is *zero*- it's free. The cost of electricity you see in Germany during the day is the cost of free solar power and costly fossil fuel power averaged together.

As more and more people install solar panels, the number of fossil fuel plants required will drop in order to keep prices high enough. It's a very effective strategy for winding down fossil fuel reliance.

The governments long term plans for solar energy are making me scratch my head a bit. Some years ago everybody wanted as much solar as possible, praising it as THE thing for the future. The crazy subsidies worked and we now have a lot of solar power. But if you look at their proclaimed plans on expansion of solar energy they want to constantly lower the further growth of installed solar power.But that hardly makes sense after we recently decided to abandon nuclear power completely. The drastic decrease in the planned increase of solar power looks a bit like good lobby work to me, as it would be quite expensive for the companies running the power grid to make it capable of handling a decentralized infrastructure of producers.

I personally always found that the subsidies were way to high and the solar companies failing now is an indication of that to me. They mainly produced for the German market which was not a bit price sensitive given the enormous subsidies. Now they have to compete but haven't raised their efficiency enough. New solar panels are going to come from elsewhere, not from Germany.

I agree that most solar power installations will be living way longer than they get subsidized and have been planned for, though.

The governments long term plans for solar energy are making me scratch my head a bit. Some years ago everybody wanted as much solar as possible, praising it as THE thing for the future. The crazy subsidies worked and we now have a lot of solar power. But if you look at their proclaimed plans on expansion of solar energy they want to constantly lower the further growth of installed solar power.But that hardly makes sense after we recently decided to abandon nuclear power completely. The drastic decrease in the planned increase of solar power looks a bit like good lobby work to me, as it would be quite expensive for the companies running the power grid to make it capable of handling a decentralized infrastructure of producers.

I personally always found that the subsidies were way to high and the solar companies failing now is an indication of that to me. They mainly produced for the German market which was not a bit price sensitive given the enormous subsidies. Now they have to compete but haven't raised their efficiency enough. New solar panels are going to come from elsewhere, not from Germany.

I agree that most solar power installations will be living way longer than they get subsidized and have been planned for, though.

It may be that Germany's government has succumbed to lobbying, but it's probably too late now that a "culture of solar" Exists and panel costs keep dropping. If it drops another 50% in 8 years again the government could cut all subsidies and it wouldn't matter.

German solar expansion is looking beyond domestic suppliers to provide cheap, efficient equipment—in many cases to China and the US, where manufacturers have more nimbly adapted to efficiency-boosting and price-cutting advances.

This is a highly mis-leading, and slightly pejorative, comment. The only US company that has "nimbly adapted" is First Solar, which hasn't adapted much at all because it's thin-film PV offering has long had the lowest $/W production cost. Multiple US PV firms are struggling or have already collapsed. Surely, you've heard to Solyndra?

As for the Chinese manufacturers... they haven't been "nimble" either. Multiple Chinese PV manufacturers are failing/have failed. The Chinese are doing relatively well, i.e. still having a positive gross margin partly because they get significant production incentives (which are different incentives from the feed-in tarrifs this article talks about; China has started/made plans for it's own FITs very recently) which artificially deflate their production costs. That said, china does have some labor cost advantages (which are minimal as PV mfg. is mostly automated) and lower regulatory costs due to poor environmental regulations, which also contribute to their lower costs.

Quote:

Rather, the effect seems to be that, by making installers more cost-conscious, the least competitive manufacturers are weeded out. If the upshot of reducing feed-in tariffs is to keep the solar industry honest, how bad is that, really?

You ignore the downside of this issue.... concentrating the supply of a vital resource - energy - in the hands of one producer - China. Last year, China had ~60% of the global PV market. Latest numbers put it north of 70%. Germany has already seen the uncertainty that over-reliance on foreign sources of energy has on its energy security with the kerfuffle over natural gas supply from Russia a few years ago. Over here, we go on and on about 'getting our heads out of Saudi Arabian sands'.

Plus, per the US Department of Commerce, manufacturing has a larger knock-on effect in terms of generating additional economic activity than any other industry. So shuttering of German PV manufacturing will likely have a multiplied impact on the German economy.

So while your evaluation of the impact of the sliding PV-tariffs is pretty positive, there are significant downsides to it as well, which could do more harm than good to the German economy in the longer run.

You ignore the downside of this issue.... concentrating the supply of a vital resource - energy - in the hands of one producer - China. Last year, China had ~60% of the global PV market. Latest numbers put it north of 70%. Germany has already seen the uncertainty that over-reliance on foreign sources of energy has on its energy security with the kerfuffle over natural gas supply from Russia a few years ago.

Wait a sec, if China built 100% of the solar panels then suddenly quit, it's not like those already installed would stop working. Your comparison to Russia is a poor choice since Russia cut off the fuel source, natural gas, whereas the fuel source for pv is sunlight.

Rates for larger installations and ground-mounted installations chart similar declines over the same period—the rates being ostensibly lowered as an incentive to promote the efficiency of PV technology.

The German Treasury has led the charge for cutting the PV tariffs (while the Greens have opposed it), so there's some debate that the rates are being lowered over macro-economic concerns rather than long-term energy policy concerns.

I don't see why they bother. Sure, 25 GW is an impressive number, but it's more like an effective average 2 GW when taking capacity factor into account. Despite the impressive numbers, it's only 2-3% of electricity contribution and even less of total energy.

In 25 years when oil, gas and coal are too expensive, Germany will be ready.

It is called "thinking ahead".

Ready for what? At the current pace, they'll be at like 10% of electricity production in those 25 years. Big whoop. That's noise. Completely irrelevant. And in the meantime, they will be closing their nuclear plants, which supply 20% of electricity (mind you, whilst having the same installed capacity as PV). So they would be taking one step forwards and two steps back.

And while Germany might succeed at curbing its energy use, globally the use of energy and fossil fuels is just going to rise by significant amounts. Humanity is fucked and this feel-good nonsense is not going to change anything about that.

Did you miss about 2/3rds of the article? Solar is having a huge effect on decreasing the cost of peak electricity right now.

Wait a sec, if China built 100% of the solar panels then suddenly quit, it's not like those already installed would stop working. Your comparison to Russia is a poor choice since Russia cut off the fuel source, natural gas, whereas the fuel source for pv is sunlight.

China won't quit making solar panels. They're undercutting so that they can dominate. Why would they quit after sinking so much money and effort into dominating the market?

The concern isn't over them quitting. It's over the Chinese government using it as a tool for political or economic leverage. 'Want cheap PV panels to meet your CO2-emissions goal? Well, there's this itch on my back that I'd like scratched.'

They've raised some eyebrows already with their rare-earth metal export quotas so it's not like they're above it. Though to be fair, no country is above that sort of behavior. Everyone's into maximizing perceived national interest.

Arguably, such behavior could end up being China shooting itself in the foot as other countries could restart manufacturing (of panels or rare-earths). But re-starting manufacturing from scratch is also an expensive and uncertain proposition, as China could then lower prices again. That's why non-China rare-earth production hasn't boomed even though it's available elsewhere. Countries are still trying to get assurances from China about rare-earth availability.

I don't see why they bother. Sure, 25 GW is an impressive number, but it's more like an effective average 2 GW when taking capacity factor into account. Despite the impressive numbers, it's only 2-3% of electricity contribution and even less of total energy.

In 25 years when oil, gas and coal are too expensive, Germany will be ready.

It is called "thinking ahead".

It is called wishful thinking, and reality is not obliged to comply. The Germans will still be dependent on dwindling fossil fuels, and energy scarcity will compound the problems. They will join in the massive collapse of western civilization just the same.

Has anyone stopped to consider just how much more renewables will cost when they are produced not with cheap fossil fuels and nuclear, but from wind and sunlight? Renewable energy is already stupidly expensive today, and it is going to get much worse. All considered, renewables are hoplessly inadequate for replacing the bulk of fossil fuel derived energy.

Now China and India, they are "thinking ahead". The rest of us have our heads up our collective asses, and if we can't manage to extract them soon, recovery will be impossible for most. (read: most will die; those remaining will have great difficulty.)

We can not afford to ignore nuclear any longer. There are huge margins for improvement of nuclear from many aspects, and molten salt reactors can safely scale to meet all of our energy needs. The technology is there, what is left is to get behind it and allow development and commercialization to proceed. There is little margin for improvement of renewables, as they are inherently diffuse energy sources. The Sun will never shine more than half the day, and never at more than 1350W/m^2. We need to realize the vast potential of nuclear, and not wage a huge gamble on humanities future, in an effort to barely scrape by.

We can not afford to ignore nuclear any longer. There are huge margins for improvement of nuclear from many aspects, and molten salt reactors can safely scale to meet all of our energy needs. The technology is there, what is left is to get behind it and allow development and commercialization to proceed. There is little margin for improvement of renewables, as they are inherently diffuse energy sources. The Sun will never shine more than half the day, and never at more than 1350W/m^2. We need to realize the vast potential of nuclear, and not wage a huge gamble on humanities future, in an effort to barely scrape by.

You're not the first person to reach this conclusion but when anyone even *talks* of building a new nuclear plant the environmentalists come out in force. They really think all it takes is willpower and everything can run on solar and wind.

You can also thank Hollywood and shows like the simpsons for duping the public into thinking that living near a nuke plan will make your babies grow tentacles.

There's enough known uranium deposits in the world that we can build fission power reactors (breeders, not the wasteful use-once type) for the next 300 years, including projected expansion. No matter how much people some people whine now about nuclear power, they'll get drowned out when the choice becomes nuclear or nothing.

Except that breeders DO NOT EXIST, and probably never will be. Germany has already given up on breeders after throwing billions down into the hole. Fission is a waste of time and it always will be. The future is clearly solar and maybe fusion.

You can also thank Hollywood and shows like the simpsons for duping the public into thinking that living near a nuke plan will make your babies grow tentacles.

Yeah, that Fukushima and Chernobyl, such fictional, made-up disasters! People are just overreacting! Learn a thing or two about nuclear radiation, will you? Learn some facts for once instead of spouting nonsense.

Now China and India, they are "thinking ahead". The rest of us have our heads up our collective asses, and if we can't manage to extract them soon, recovery will be impossible for most. (read: most will die; those remaining will have great difficulty.)

You know why China and India are investing in nuclear? It's because all that nuclear money is going straight to the corrupt bureaucrats' pockets. Nuclear actually powers very little of India and China despite pouring tons of money into nuclear. China and India are notorious for corrupt officials. Nuclear and democracy do not mix.

KonoWatakushi wrote:

We need to realize the vast potential of nuclear, and not wage a huge gamble on humanities future, in an effort to barely scrape by.

Nuclear has potential... potential for catastrophic disasters. We can not gamble on humanities future with dangerous nuclear radiation. Fukushima was "this" close to making the entire Japan into an uninhabitable wasteland. It was close to destroying Tokyo, the government has even admitted that.

I came cross this surprisingly frank article written by a solar-promoting organization earlier this year that presents things from the solar manufacturers' point of view. It's very much government policy sustaining small-scale PV solar in the US market at its present scale.

I can see how those generous per-kWH subsidies could become a contentious point with the utilities and other electrical customers. It's really difficult for me to justify much beyond net metering where the utility pays you whatever the retail rate is and perhaps a tax rebate on the upfront system costs. Much beyond that and you risk a gold rush.

Living in a state without net metering, I've pretty much ruled out a solar system on financial grounds - the system might pay for itself in about 25 years... effectively ruling it out on a multi-kilowatt scale for grid intertie. That prospect also rests heavily on the assumption that the retail price of electricity keeps inflating at its historical pace. Net-metering might change that to something closer to a 10 year payoff, but I don't see that happening here anytime ever.

Except that breeders DO NOT EXIST, and probably never will be. Germany has already given up on breeders after throwing billions down into the hole. Fission is a waste of time and it always will be. The future is clearly solar and maybe fusion.

Except for the ones that do, like this one which has been supplying power to the Russian grid since 1980. Or the PRISM that GE has been proposing to build in Sellafield.

Gorash wrote:

Yeah, that Fukushima and Chernobyl, such fictional, made-up disasters! People are just overreacting! Learn a thing or two about nuclear radiation, will you? Learn some facts for once instead of spouting nonsense.

Do you realize just how ignorant and hysterical you come across? People are overreacting, as they are mostly misinformed by anti-nuclear propaganda, which people like you pass off as "facts". The facts, should you be willing to discover them should lead you to the same conclusion as any rational person: even accounting for the disasters, nuclear is still the safest form of power generation, and has the smallest environmental impact. No, radiation is not the bogeyman.

Gorash wrote:

You know why China and India are investing in nuclear? It's because all that nuclear money is going straight to the corrupt bureaucrats' pockets. Nuclear actually powers very little of India and China despite pouring tons of money into nuclear. China and India are notorious for corrupt officials. Nuclear and democracy do not mix.

It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they desperately need to secure energy and clean water for their population? You talk of corruption, but who in this case--the research institutions? The nuclear industry is in its infancy, and if it were as corrupt as you posit, research into new forms of nuclear would not be happening.

Quote:

Nuclear has potential... potential for catastrophic disasters. We can not gamble on humanities future with dangerous nuclear radiation. Fukushima was "this" close to making the entire Japan into an uninhabitable wasteland. It was close to destroying Tokyo, the government has even admitted that.

As opposed to the guaranteed disasters of a much greater magnitude that we face without nuclear. Never mind the potential to solve our energy problems in a clean and safe manner, with minimal environmental impact. If you are not a shill, then you are fool. I could believe either, since you refuse to learn.

I don't see why they bother. Sure, 25 GW is an impressive number, but it's more like an effective average 2 GW when taking capacity factor into account. Despite the impressive numbers, it's only 2-3% of electricity contribution and even less of total energy.

In 25 years when oil, gas and coal are too expensive, Germany will be ready.

It is called "thinking ahead".

Ready for what? At the current pace, they'll be at like 10% of electricity production in those 25 years. Big whoop. That's noise. Completely irrelevant. And in the meantime, they will be closing their nuclear plants, which supply 20% of electricity (mind you, whilst having the same installed capacity as PV). So they would be taking one step forwards and two steps back.

And while Germany might succeed at curbing its energy use, globally the use of energy and fossil fuels is just going to rise by significant amounts. Humanity is fucked and this feel-good nonsense is not going to change anything about that.

What are you talking about? Germany is already at 20%, and they want to be at 40% in 8 years. In 25 years they might be at 80% if they keep going.

I don't see why they bother. Sure, 25 GW is an impressive number, but it's more like an effective average 2 GW when taking capacity factor into account. Despite the impressive numbers, it's only 2-3% of electricity contribution and even less of total energy.

In 25 years when oil, gas and coal are too expensive, Germany will be ready.

It is called "thinking ahead".

It is called wishful thinking, and reality is not obliged to comply. The Germans will still be dependent on dwindling fossil fuels, and energy scarcity will compound the problems. They will join in the massive collapse of western civilization just the same.

Has anyone stopped to consider just how much more renewables will cost when they are produced not with cheap fossil fuels and nuclear, but from wind and sunlight? Renewable energy is already stupidly expensive today, and it is going to get much worse. All considered, renewables are hoplessly inadequate for replacing the bulk of fossil fuel derived energy.

Now China and India, they are "thinking ahead". The rest of us have our heads up our collective asses, and if we can't manage to extract them soon, recovery will be impossible for most. (read: most will die; those remaining will have great difficulty.)

We can not afford to ignore nuclear any longer. There are huge margins for improvement of nuclear from many aspects, and molten salt reactors can safely scale to meet all of our energy needs. The technology is there, what is left is to get behind it and allow development and commercialization to proceed. There is little margin for improvement of renewables, as they are inherently diffuse energy sources. The Sun will never shine more than half the day, and never at more than 1350W/m^2. We need to realize the vast potential of nuclear, and not wage a huge gamble on humanities future, in an effort to barely scrape by.

Why would they get more expensive? That doesn't make any sense.The reason it's so expensive now, is the same reason every new technology is expensive in the beginning. There's not a whole lot of knowledge to produce them cheaply and there is no mass scale production. But there will be. And other solar innovations will appear as well besides the incremental improvements.

Well, solar power's been crazily subsidized here. So crazily, that in fact the prices for panels didn't decline despite rapidly shrinking manufacturing costs. People still bought them, because they made a profit in the end and the costs for that get distributed to all consumers with a renewable energy tax on power.

Germany's solar situation would be fine, if we had reliable and affordable means of storing electricity. Pumped storage is one option -- pump water up the hill during the day when power from the sun is abundant and cheap, and then run it through a hydroelectric dam when the sun isn't shining. Or solar thermal storage like will be done in the American west. This would allow that second peak on the graph to be mitigated or eliminated.

This is the problem with subsidies in general. They need to match the underlying market conditions or they do more harm than good. Subsidies can be used properly. Not reducing the FIT when the underlying panels became cheaper to manufacture was problem #1. This allowed solar companies, installers, etc to keep prices high and obtain profits they otherwise shouldn't have (they should be profitable, but only enough until the FIT is phased out completely).

We may have the same (eventual) problem in America with plug-in cars. They're expensive now, but as they get cheaper to make, we need to pare back the incentive we give to those buyers to force manufacturers to bring the sticker prices down. That money would be better spent elsewhere in support of that effort - subsiding charging stations at places like grocery stores, malls, etc. so more miles are spent under electric power instead of oil.

(Just so no one thinks I'm some anti-green advocate, I manage a 3MW, 15,000 panel PV solar power array in the western US. I also own a Chevy Volt plug-in electric vehicle.)

I don't see why they bother. Sure, 25 GW is an impressive number, but it's more like an effective average 2 GW when taking capacity factor into account. Despite the impressive numbers, it's only 2-3% of electricity contribution and even less of total energy.

In 25 years when oil, gas and coal are too expensive, Germany will be ready.

It is called "thinking ahead".

Ready for what? At the current pace, they'll be at like 10% of electricity production in those 25 years. Big whoop. That's noise. Completely irrelevant. And in the meantime, they will be closing their nuclear plants, which supply 20% of electricity (mind you, whilst having the same installed capacity as PV). So they would be taking one step forwards and two steps back.

And while Germany might succeed at curbing its energy use, globally the use of energy and fossil fuels is just going to rise by significant amounts. Humanity is fucked and this feel-good nonsense is not going to change anything about that.

What are you talking about? Germany is already at 20%, and they want to be at 40% in 8 years. In 25 years they might be at 80% if they keep going.

Grid operators can potentially make inexpensive adjustments to offset seasonal peaking- and load-following plant operations that overlap with PV solar. Once you get into trying to use PV solar to offset base load, you run into problems unless you build a considerable amount of storage into the grid.

Concentrated (read: thermal) solar has some thermal storage potential when it uses particular thermal mediums like liquid salts or oils, but Germany seems focused on PV solar and one suspects its northern latitude makes concentrated solar a poor proposition. Concentrated Solar plants also need quite a bit of land...

Utility-grade storage schemes presently seem to consist of pumped-hydro and subterranean compressed-air. Pumped-hydro requires a great deal of land for reservoirs and appreciable capital investment; on the upside it works quite well. Compressed-air storage requires convenient geology but otherwise has a small (above-ground) footprint; downside is that it's not been deployed widely.

What are you talking about? Germany is already at 20%, and they want to be at 40% in 8 years. In 25 years they might be at 80% if they keep going.

20% of electrical maybe, however that leaves an enormous gap even if they could manage 100%. A lot of fossil fuels are consumed for other purposes, and are not so easily replaced. Some are burned directly for process heat, like coal for cement or steel production. High temperature nuclear reactors would be a great fit here--but solar and wind?

lucianarmasu wrote:

Why would they get more expensive? That doesn't make any sense.The reason it's so expensive now, is the same reason every new technology is expensive in the beginning. There's not a whole lot of knowledge to produce them cheaply and there is no mass scale production. But there will be. And other solar innovations will appear as well besides the incremental improvements.

Renewable technology pricing doesn't follow Moore's law--the laws of nature impart very clear limits on what is achievable, and even at 100% efficiency, solar and wind just aren't that attractive. They require a massive amount of land and resources, and those require massive amounts of energy to develop and produce. If you shift the energy input for their production from cheap and efficient sources like fossil fuels any nuclear to expensive and inefficient sources like wind and solar, the impact on cost will be huge.

Really, this should be obvious from a cursory glance: when you need to cover the entire nation with renewable energy collectors, it is going to be vastly more expensive and environmentally damaging than anything energy dense enough to fit in a small building.

Does anybody here do maths? If the feed-in tariff had dropped to around Euro 224/MwH from 500+, you could probably say that most of your Solar power was costing you north of Euro 270/MwH. How much do you have to buy at this price to bring the overall cost down to Euro 45/MwH during peak hour? There may be more availability of solar, but at that price it cannot be the cause of the reduction in peak power cost. The true cost of the feed-in may be absorbed in taxation and not accounted for in this market, but you cannot buy more of an expensive item instead of a cheaper one and save money.